Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday February 28, 2013 @01:06PM
from the free-information-has-a-steep-price dept.

Entropy98 sends this quote from the LA Times:
"Army Pfc. Bradley Edward Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred highly classified U.S. government secrets, agreeing to serve [up to] 20 years in prison for causing a worldwide uproar when WikiLeaks published documents describing the inner workings of U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe. The 25-year-old soldier, however, pleaded not guilty to 12 more serious charges, including espionage for aiding the enemy, meaning that his criminal case will go forward at a general court-martial in June. If convicted at trial, he risks a sentence of life in prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan."

The big revelation is that he also gave the documents over to US agencies first. Aiding the enemy my ass, he went to Wikileaks after the New York Times (which Daniel Ellsberg used for the Pentagon leak) and other news agencies that didn't follow through.

But even if you did it, why would you plead guilty to 10 charges when they are still going to prosecute for the other 12? Wouldn't you negotiate a bargain where they'd drop 12 to get a guilty plea on 10? Otherwise, you have nothing to fear from a trial on the 10 you plead guilty to. The worst case is that they'd find you guilty of what you would plead guilty to in the first place.

The guy is apparently rather unstable, but he made better use of his deployment in Iraq than any of the other soldiers who brutalized random people and often came back homeless, crippled, or dead for following the rules.

We already knew about the waterboarding which our best intelligence indicates will get people to admit to anything we want them to admit (such as erroneous links between Iraq and 9/11 in one famous case). Manning did leak the video (search for 'Collateral murder Iraq video') of u.s. soldiers firing on a truck of civialians as well as people coming to help them in the aftermath, including killing two AP reporters. There were also leaked cables that confirmed thousands of accidental civilian casualties as well as standard modes of torture that were previously only hearsay or not considered widespread (involving sexual abuse, power drills and/or hanging people from the ceiling, forcing them in stress positions for long durations, etc). Additionally there was evidence of specific shady dealings with foreign gov'ts.

I've said it about about similar topics. Even though he is the CiC and their titular boss, he cannot dictate the findings of a court of law, even a military court of law, it is illegal for him to do so, and it would result in an instant mistrail or automatic appeal which would be garunteed to overturn the previous court's decision. that fact you would state such a thinkg only proves how absoutely blind and ignorant you are.

Wait, who is the enemy here?Last time i checked, the only possible fit for the enemy in this whole scenario is the public. It embarrasses many officials who were doing things or saying things they shouldn't have been. I don't see any standard description of an enemy that could have benefited from any of the leaks. The only thing that makes sense is public opinion and backlash again shady dealings.

Can somebody explain to me where all the "pro-Constitution" people on Slashdot go when gun control comes up?

Just curious, because whenever Bradley Manning or wikileaks comes up, we've got a bunch of constitutional scholars who think they're Rehnquist reborn chiming in, yet they never seem to show up when the 2nd amendment is being shit on.

Aiding the enemy doesn't have to be a deliberate choice. You don't have to say "today I will aid the enemy."

You do to be convicted of "attempting to aid the enemy". To attempt something requires intent.

If you just want to convict him of "aiding the enemy" instead of "attempting to aid the enemy" THEN you can maybe forego intent, but then you would at least have to prove that he did in fact aid them. So far the analysis hasn't shown there to have been any material aid rendered.

Embarrassing the government, and making a bunch of diplomats look like the complete asshats they are, and exposing dubious behavior to the world is not "aiding the enemy".

So what you are arguing is that the material he released was so meaningless that it makes no difference to anyone. His valiant bravery in releasing documents that seriously compromise US diplomatic efforts didn't actually have any effect on anything at all...

No. I'm arguing that it didn't aid the enemy. Aiding the enemy should be a very significant and overt bar.

Should we charge anyone trying to get rid of rapiscan airport scanners for aiding the enemy? What about people who argue against having to take their shoes off and be subjected to full body searches every time they fly, or people who object to no fly lists, and warrantless searches within 100 miles of the coast? In theory these measures make it harder for terrorists to hurt us, so anyone seeking to get rid of these measures is aiding the enemy? The majority of slashdot are traitors?